There seems to have been an unusual spate of questions on Academia with a similar "unsung genius" theme. I'm not going to highlight any particular post but the bulk of them relate to fields of physics (especially quantum mechanics and relativity), psychology, and mathematics, but occasionally include other domains. The questions usually involve one or more of the following things:
- A statement about the researcher's unappreciated independent work that would, could, or in their view already has, produced a revolutionary new way of looking at the topic of interest.
- A description of the paucity of their own academic training or credentials usually due to the lack of time the author has had to pursue a mundane academic career while working on the revolutionary theory, or due to bias on the part of a degree awarding institution.
- One or more self-publications, predatory journal publications, or YouTube videos.
- A desire for money (employment as a senior research director), pinnacle fame (nomination for a prize of award of some kind), widespread recognition (adoption of my theories into mainstream physics, medical, mathematics, or psychological practice).
- A request for suggestions about how to force, coerce, convince, bribe, leverage or otherwise manipulate others into overcoming the hurdles the OP has faced.
Ultimately, most of the posts get closed for want of clarity... but I'm wondering whether it would be more useful to:
- Produce a community answer of the kind that I've seen elsewhere, that addresses the main problems. Such an answer might include separate sections with comments that are domain specific
- Close the questions as being duplicates, rather than as merely requiring clarification. The advantages of doing that would be that all similar questions were ultimately directed towards a useful generic answer and the OP would be given clear information about how their question would have to be improved before it could be reopened as a non-duplicate.
The second of the points above would also cater to those questions (of which I've seen several) which, at a first glance, appear to be like those I've described but turn out not to be.